University of the Philippines College of Law

Case Digest
TOPIC: Effects of final judgement declaring nullity- Property Regime of the marriage
DOCTRINE:
CASE Number (including date):
CASE Name: Barrido vs Nonato
Ponente

FACTS
In the course of the marriage of respondent Leonardo V. Nonato and petitioner Marietta N. Barrido,they
were able to acquire a property situated in Eroreco, Bacolod City, consisting of a house and lot
On March 15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Nonato asked Barrido for partition, but the latter refused.
on January 29, 2003, Nonato filed a Complaint for partition
Barrido claimed, by way of affirmative defense, that the subject property had already been sold to their
children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo.
Lower court used Art 129 to

1.

Whether or not Art 129 is applicable

ISSUES

HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)

(1) NO:
The records reveal that Nonatoand Barridos marriage had been declared void for psychological
incapacity under Article 3610
of the Family Code. During their marriage, however, the conjugal partnership
regime governed their property relations. Although Article 12911
provides for the
procedure in case of dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, Article 147 specifically covers the effects
of void marriages on the spouses property relations. Article 147 reads:
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed
to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any
property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during
cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their
cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the
co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all
of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving
descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

 This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impedimentto
marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit
of marriage. It is clear, therefore, that for Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be
capacitated to marry each other; (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union
is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. Here, all these elements are present. The term
"capacitated" in the first paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract
marriage. Any impediment to marry has not been shown to have existed on the part of either Nonato or
Barrido. They lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. However, their marriage was found to
be void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Here, the former spouses both agree that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their
marriage.

Thus, it shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be jointly
owned by them in equal shares.

Barrido, however, claims that the ownership over the property in question is already vested on their
children, by virtue of a Deed of Sale. But aside from the title to the property still being registered in the
names of the former spouses, said document of sale does not bear a notarization of a notary public. It must
be noted that without the notarial seal, a document remains to be private and cannot be converted into a
public document, making it inadmissible in evidence unless properly authenticated.
o

Unfortunately, Barrido failed to prove its due execution and authenticity.

she merely annexed said Deed of Sale to her position paper.

Therefore, the subject property remains to be owned in common by Nonato and Barrido, which
should be divided in accordance with the rules on co-ownership.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
November 16, 2006, as well as its Resolution dated January 24, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00235, are hereby
AFFIRMED.